[U-Boot] U-Boot git usage model

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 04:14:23PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/09/2012 03:32 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 03:03:28PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 10/09/2012 08:23 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 08:49:00PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> NOTE: I get a few more size issues with ELDK 4.2 on IXP
> >>>> (that big-endian ARM) after this patchset is applied. I
> >>>> wonder if we shouldn't just throw these away, since they're
> >>>> dead code mostly.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The following changes since commit 
> >>>> c7ee66a8222660b565e9240775efa4c82cb348c2:
> >>>> 
> >>>> Merge branch 'next' of git://www.denx.de/git/u-boot-ppc4xx
> >>>> into next (2012-10-02 10:16:40 -0700)
> >>>> 
> >>>> are available in the git repository at:
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> git://git.denx.de/u-boot-usb.git next
> >>>> 
> >>>> for you to fetch changes up to 
> >>>> f0ede0e8305bc3c959862446bce40cb028b36293:
> >>>> 
> >>>> usb.h: Add udc_disconnect prototype to usb.h (2012-10-07
> >>>> 02:08:48 +0200)
> >>> 
> >>> I had to rebase this locally to merge (such is next), and now
> >>> it's applied to u-boot/next, thanks!
> >> 
> >> Hmm. Can't "git merge" solve merge conflicts just as well as "git
> >> rebase"?
> >> 
> >> The problem with rebasing when pulling is that git commit IDs
> >> change, so it's much more difficult to determine when a commit is
> >> merged into a parent tree; one has to search by commit subject
> >> rather than just executing e.g. git branch -a --contains XXX. I
> >> thought Albert just agreed to use merges rather than rebases for
> >> u-boot-arm for this and perhaps other reasons.
> > 
> > The short answer is that right now, u-boot/next follows the
> > linux-next model and we rebase as needed.
> 
> I don't quite follow that; linux-next is also purely merge-based. Are
> you referring to the fact that it's re-created every day, and the
> source branches that go into the merge can be rebased if needed?

I'm referring to that it's always rebased on top of Linus' tree.  That's
what caused the issue here, u-boot-usb was based on top of u-boot/next
(which is may not have strictly needed to be) so I did the job of
rebasing for Marek since it was an easy one.

> Instead, I think u-boot/next is just a place where patches get
> applied, or branches get merged, before u-boot/master is open to
> accept new patches for the next release. Unless I'm misunderstanding
> it purpose of course...
> 
> Now, having a linux-next style daily merge of u-boot-*/next would be
> pretty awesome.

Well, it's a merge of what people want to get into the next merge
window, as often as they're willing to submit if they are a custodian or
as often as I can otherwise.  In fact, right now some pull requests need
to be on top of next rather than a "stable" point because we're making
some pretty big cleanups and changes in a few areas right now.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20121009/d486b378/attachment.pgp>